Cat's Paw Theory

2009 in the employment discrimination context what is known as the cats paw theory refers to a situation in which a biased subordinate who lacks decisionmaking power influences the unbiased decisionmaker to make an adverse employment decision thereby hiding the subordinates. The Spiggle Law Firm.

05 05 15 Kitty Paw Tranquility Cat Paws Kitty Paw

As noted the cats paw theory occurs when a biased supervisor who doesnt have decision-making authority uses the decision-maker as a dupe in a scheme to discriminate against the employee.

. 09-400 March 1 2011 the United States Supreme Court affirmed employer liability under the Cats Paw theory1 which attributes an intermediate supervisors animus toward the employee to the disciplining supervisor despite the disciplining supervisors lack of knowledge of the intermediate supervisors animus toward. For example the biased supervisor could make false statements to the decision-maker to get the employee fired. The cats paw theory borrows from an old fable in which a conniving monkey convinces a cat to reach into a fire to get roasting chestnuts.

It typically arises in an employment law context where a biased subordinate employee taints a neutral employers employment decision making it a discriminatory action. Koppers Inc 726 F3d 910 915 7th Cir. Contributed by Amanda Biondolino April 4 2017 The Cats Paw Theory in discrimination cases is based upon a fable in which a clever monkey tricks an unwitting cat to pull chestnuts from a fire so that the monkey can make off.

In the discrimination context the theory means that an employer like the duped cat can be liable. The cats paw theory gets its name from the fable of a 17th Century French poet about a monkey who persuaded a cat to pull chestnuts out of the fire so the cat gets burned and the monkey makes off with the chestnutsÂ In its simplest form in the workplace context the employer gets the legal blame even if the actual executive or supervisor who fires or demotes a. Proctor Hospital 562 US___ 2011 LW 691244 Case No.

Cats paw liability describes a scenario when an employee or supervisor motivated by discriminatory intent influences an otherwise unbiased decision-maker to take an adverse employment action against another employee. The following is a review of decisions from the 9 th Circuit both Appellate and District court cases providing color to Cats Paw. The cats paw theory of liability as explained infra is a method of imputing causation onto an employer by an employees actions.

Taken from a fable about a monkey who tricks a cat into using his a paw to retrieve chestnuts from a fire. The cats paw theory holds that an employer should be liable for adverse employment actions it takes at the behest of or instigation of a non-decision maker when the action is motivated by the non-decision-makers unlawful discriminatory or retaliatory animus. Proctor Hosp 562 US.

In response the company argued the cats paw theory did not apply to retaliation cases arguing they rely on a different legal standard than the type of discrimination at issue in the Supreme Courts Staub decision. The cats paw theory is named after one of Aesops fables in which a clever monkey flatters or in some versions of the story forces a naïve cat into snatching chestnuts out of a fire. The Cats Paw Doctrine Cats Paw has gotten a lot of play in the 9 th Circuit in the years following the Supreme Courts treatment of it in Staub v.

2013 is a defense favorable opinion. The cats paw theory that is at issue in the newly granted case gets its name from a 17th century french poet and his story about a money who persuaded a cat to pull chestnuts out of a fire and got burned in the processâ as that theory applies to employment law it would hold the employer legally to blame for discrimination in the workplace. In interpreting the so-called cats paw theory of liability the high court declined to adopt the hard-and-fast rule suggested by the employer that a decisionmakers independent investigation and rejection of an employees allegations of discriminatory animus should negate the effect of any prior discrimination.

The cats paw theory borrows from an old fable in which a conniving monkey convinces a cat to reach into a fire to get roasting chestnuts. Cats-paw A person who is used by another to achieve some end especially in a duplicitous or cynical manner. The monkey quickly eats them leaving the cat with a burnt paw and no chestnuts.

The cat is duped burns its paw and the monkey enjoys the chestnuts with no harm. In the end the employer is. The phrase is sometimes spelled without a hyphen.

In recent years the cats paw theory of discrimination has been raised in the context of employment law as a means of holding employers liable for the discriminatory animus of a supervisor who was not directly responsible for making an adverse employment decision. The Court in Staub applying what has come to be known as the cats paw theory of employer liability held that an employer may be strictly liable for intentional discrimination under USERRA and other similar statutes like Title VII when a lower-level supervisor intentionally discriminates. For New York employers the Cats Paw theory of liability is more than just a childrens fable.

The 9 th Circuit Court of Appeals. In the employment discrimination context the Cats Paw theory refers to a supervisor with no discriminatory animus the cat being manipulated by another who harbors such animus the monkey into taking adverse action against an employee. The cats paw theory highlights the importance of employers conducting diligent and independent investigations prior to terminating employees as merely undertaking a paper review of an informers recommendation without performing an independent investigation will not be sufficient to shield an employer from liability if the recommendation is racially motivated.

The cat is duped burns its paw and the monkey enjoys. Of transp 566 f3d 582 587 n5 6th cir. The cats paw theory can support individual liability under 1981 for a subordinate employee who intentionally causes a decision-maker to take adverse action against another employee in retaliation for statutorily protected activity Johnson v.

Proctor Hospital decided on March 1 2011.

21 Adorable Cats Who Just Want A Hug Cute Animals Crazy Cats Animals